# Colorado baker sued again

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 16, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732 "2018-08-16T14:23:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 13

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [January 29, 2023, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/241 "2023-01-29T13:53:15Z")

</div>

> [@RitterSport](#):
>
> Didn’t the baker actually win at SCOTUS? I don’t think you learn your lesson by winning.

Very generally and with very little nuance:

The BigotedBaker “won” in his Supreme Court case, because the Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited bias against BB’s claims of religious discrimination, and thus he did not receive a fair hearing. Thus, this lack of neutrality led to the Commission’s ruling being unconstitutional. They then sent it back for further hearings. The ruling was very limited in scope.

This current case, which the Colorado Court of Appeals just ruled on), is different factually (turns out bigots gonna bigot) than his prior case (which is also currently now working its way back through the Courts), but deals with all the same general issues. And, thus far, the Commission and Courts have ruled BigotedBaker doesn’t have the right to refuse to serve customers on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation. The most recent ruling will likely be appealled to the Colorado Supreme Court and then the federal system. Will be awhile yet.

That said, I am not hopeful that this Supreme Court, as currently compromised, will allow anti-discrimination laws, as applied to sexual orientation and sexual identity, to apply to discrimination based on religious beliefs.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\
**Post date:** [January 29, 2023, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732/242 "2023-01-29T14:02:47Z")

</div>

> [@Kimstu](#):
>
> IANAL by any stretch of the imagination, but what springs to mind is the potential difference in “speech” implications between “refusing to make a wedding cake for a couple whose marriage one disapproves of” and “backing out of an existing agreement to make a cake for a customer because you don’t like the type of celebration that you just found out she plans to use it for”.
> 
> That’s not restricting one’s product line, that’s discriminating against the particular customer.

You’re forgetting the reason the BigotedBaker won’t make the cake is RELIGIOUS, not just your normal anti-gay/anti-trans bigotry. The religious nature of the belief instills magical Constitutional protections, so that requiring BigotedBaker to follow a generally applicable law will become unconstitutional. Or so the argument goes.

It will likely require a re-imagining/overruling of Supreme Court jurisprudence to accept, but this current SCOTUS has shown little to no concern for that.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/colorado-baker-sued-again/819732.md?page=12)